Religious Experience A02

Question 1

corporate experiences are more valid

Answer 1

• greater evidential force
• in science the more times an experiment can be shown to prove something the more weight is added
• greater the principle of testimony as the testimony is shared by many
• more credible
• Medjugorje - their descriptions of Mary were the same

Question 2

corporate experiences are not more valid

Answer 2

• Medjugorje - all describe Mary the same as all brought up with the same image of Mary - knew the expectation - always depicted wearing blue e.g.
• element of peer group pressure
• someone might say they hear something and others agree to feel included to the point they convince themselves its true
• Toronto Blessing may have been caused by whipped up hysteria rather than the Holy Spirit
• same could be said of Pentecost - Jesus had just died - they were alone and frightened

Question 3

religious experience provides proof of God’s existence

Answer 3

• many other been influenced by someone’s RE - Lourdes is now a major site of pilgrimage which some miracle approved by the Church and it led to the doctrine of the immaculate conception
• of course different religious believers see visions in keeping with their faith - if G wants to reveal himself he will do so in a form recognisable to the person- of course Mary is always in blue - if she turned up in jeans we wouldn’t recognise her
• no reason why God can’t appear to people when they’re on drugs/unwell/grieving - its at these times when we need God the most
• even with naturalistic explanations for some experiences or scientists being able to artificially create RE does not prove no RE can come from God

Question 4

religious experiences provide no proof of God’s existence

Answer 4

• only has evidential force for the person having it - you might change your behaviour but this is only relevant for you
• your RE can never be conclusive for others
• can’t be tested by others
• can interpret RE in different ways even if emotions or visions the same - affected by culture e.g.
• another person may interpret the RE as hallucination or give it a naturalistic explanation
• can’t prove which is correct
• different religions encounter God in ways that match their beliefs
• undermines evidential force
• wish fulfilment - real Mary would not have worn blue so not really Mary
• Union with G is only explanation and not most plausible
• psycho explanations make more sense
• Francis of Assisi had been fasting - hallucinations

Question 5

personal testimony is enough

Answer 5

• someone’s belief that they have seen God may be v strong - provides some evidence esp if it has a significant effect on person like conversion
• they speak convincingly of what they saw and these accounts are persuasive
• Swinburne’s principle of testimony
• we should be prepared to believe someone’s report of private RE in the same way as if they told us about an everyday experience
• James - validity = effects
• supported by Bible which warns us to beware false prophets and St Paul wrote of ‘fruits of spirit’

Question 6

personal testimony is not enough

Answer 6

• sincerity with which someone speaks does not necessarily make it true
• may be mistaken
• Davies disagrees - we should only take someone’s word at face value if that matter is trivial not of ultimate importance like God - need more than word
• Russel - the fact a belief has good moral effect is no evidence, may still have natural explanation
• experiences can’t be tested by others - not possible to do a scientific study of these experiences and so they can’t be used as evidence
• only have person’s individual account of what happened and we can’t recreate the experience even if we copy the circumstances by fasting e.g.
• we can’t make the same experience happen for ourselves - problem of other minds

Question 7

ideas of William James are helpful in understanding RE

Answer 7

• large sample size - his investigation is broad and wide ranging allowing him to identify four characteristics shared by all RE
• persuasive that there is some common thread within these experiences
• greater evidence this is union with God rather than natural explanations
• situations of people having RE is v different yet common themes suggest common source
• argues you can test the validity in terms of LT effects
• sees RE as source of religious institutions
• foundation of the church was 2 RE - Pentecost and St Paul on Road to Damascus

Question 8

ideas of William James are not helpful in understanding RE

Answer 8

• 4 characteristics are broad and useless
• of course RE is ineffable and will be passive if you’re on drugs etc…
• far more differences between RE - visions of different people, voices, bright lights
• Russell would critique the idea that effects is evidence
• experience can still have a naturalist explanation
• James believed institutions are 2nd to RE but most people belong to a faith from birth and religion is tied up with cultural and identity
• most people never have an ineffable mystical religious experience
• categories are helpful but he doesn’t tell us where RE comes from
• describes RE doesn’t explain them
• didn’t even believe it offers conclusive proof of G